Archive for Members

Partnering with ALAHA to Celebrate 2021 Doctors’ Day

Partnering with ALAHA to Celebrate 2021 Doctors’ Day

Today is a day set aside nationwide to honor the physicians who care for us every day of the year.  Doctors’ Day was established on March 30 in 1934, and later in 1991, President George H.W. Bush proclaimed National Doctors’ Day as a time for the nation to celebrate the dedication and leadership of physicians.  In Alabama, today is a time to formally recognize our state’s nearly 17,000 licensed physicians serving millions of residents through private practice, in hospitals, in research, and in other health care facilities.

“Physicians often lead their patients and communities through some of life’s most challenging moments and the past year has proved to be even more demanding,” said John S. Meigs, Jr., MD, President of the Medical Association. “On behalf of the Medical Association, I wanted to express my appreciation for the thousands of physicians throughout Alabama who have sacrificed so much during the COVID-19 pandemic. A simple ‘thank you’ cannot convey the gratitude that we feel towards Alabama’s healthcare providers. Physicians have been and continue to be on the front lines and have demonstrated unparalleled selflessness, dedication, and courage. This pandemic has exposed shortcomings in our healthcare system but has also highlighted many opportunities for growth. I am confident that as we enter a new year, we can work together to reach a new normal. If you want to know how you can thank your physician, continue to wear your mask, socially distance, and use other precautionary measures.”

“Healthcare today is more complex than ever,” said Alabama Hospital Association President, Dr. Don Williamson, MD. “Even without the disruption of a global pandemic, physicians are faced with more challenges and pressure than ever before. What our healthcare professionals have endured over the past year has been monumental, and we could never adequately express how thankful we are for them. Physicians have faced a giant this year, and countless Alabamians are still with us today because of the dedication, selflessness, and expertise of a local physician. While we can end the month of March 2021 with a much more positive outlook than March 2020, let’s not forget that there is still much risk for our healthcare workers. Please continue to wear a mask and use precautions. It’s the right and responsible thing to do.”

We all understand the critical role our doctors and other health professionals have played in leading us through this past year. Help us thank our doctors today for what they do for the health of all Alabamians!

Posted in: Members, Official Statement

Leave a Comment (0) →

Op-ed: Alabama physicians face challenges head-on during vaccine rollout

Op-ed: Alabama physicians face challenges head-on during vaccine rollout

By: John Meigs, Jr., MD, President – Medical Association of the State of Alabama

Because of a seemingly slow rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, physicians have started to hear many concerns from their patients. Understandably, the people of Alabama are growing more eager each day to get vaccinated. Physicians were privileged to be included in the first tier of vaccine recipients and remain our patients’ biggest advocate for vaccination against the Coronavirus. 

In addition to issues like staffing shortages, a major obstacle we face is the fact that from week to week, our practices and hospitals are not alerted to when we are getting more vaccines or exactly how many we will receive. Even the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) has no input into the quantity allocated and is typically notified less than 24 hours before the vaccine is shipped. This makes it extremely difficult to set up vaccination and follow-up appointments. 

It’s tempting but comparing Alabama’s response to surrounding states doesn’t necessarily make sense. The number of COVID-19 vaccine doses allocated to Alabama is based on our population and is not determined by how much vaccine is on hand in the state. The number of doses remaining from previous allocations does not affect the number of doses that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) authorizes for Alabama.

Alabama still faces struggles in figuring out the logistics of vaccine distribution and allocation but there are a few things your physician wants you to know about the process.

  • The Federal Government determines the quantity of vaccines that are allocated to the state.
  • There is a shortage of available vaccines in Alabama.
  • There are 326,000 healthcare providers, nursing home residents, law enforcement officers, firefighters and 350,000 persons 75 years of age and older that are currently eligible for the vaccine.
  • The number of first doses of the vaccine shipped to Alabama per week only averages around 50,000 to 60,000.

Wide distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine will take time. While we are anxious for the vaccine to be made available to all Alabamians, physicians also want to urge you to wait until you fall into the appropriate tier. As of January 28th, Alabama is administering vaccines to healthcare workers, residents and staff in long-term care facilities, first responders, and individuals 75 years of age and older. 

We know vaccines are the best bet to slow this pandemic down and get enough folks immunized so the virus won’t spread as easily. However for now, even after we get vaccinated, we need to continue to wear masks and physically distance. We want to protect folks from a disease that can be very deadly. If we all work together, we will be that much closer to getting life back to normal.

Posted in: Coronavirus, Leadership, Members

Leave a Comment (0) →

Advocacy in Action: Recapping AAFP’s “Day on the Hill”

Advocacy in Action: Recapping AAFP’s “Day on the Hill”

Why Advocacy Matters

Multiple times each legislative session, the Medical Association’s Government Relations team calls and emails physicians asking them to contact their legislator(s) regarding a specific bill or amendment. As evidenced by the Association’s track record of advocacy successes each year, a number of physicians respond to these “calls to action,” but not near as many as needed.

Unfortunately, there is a belief (not only amongst physicians) that an individual’s voice doesn’t matter; that emails to legislators won’t be read; that phone calls to legislators won’t be passed along; or that legislators won’t listen. Whatever the reason, the underlying premise – that an individual’s voice can’t make a difference – is incorrect.

Not only do legislators desire to hear from constituents, they desperately need to hear from physician-constituents on important health topics. Still, many legislators are surprised when they hear from local physicians at all. This must change.

Heeding the Medical Association’s calls to action could not only have lasting impacts on legislators’ positions on a particular issue, but it could also open the door for physicians to weigh in on other health-related topics.

As the old adage goes, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” The Medical Association makes it a priority to ensure physicians are at the table, but medicine can’t get there without individual physicians doing their part; our likelihood of continued success on state health policy issues depends on your advocacy.  

AAFP's Advocacy Efforts

In early March – shortly before the legislature shutdown due to COVID concerns – the Medical Association teamed up with the Alabama Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and the UAB Rural Scholars Program for a day of advocacy at the State House. Particular topics spotlighted throughout the day were the need for updates to the Rural Physician Tax Credit and increasing funding for the BMSA.

Of those in attendance were Dr. Bill Coleman, Dr. David Bramm, Dr. Holly McCaleb, Dr. Drake Lavender, Wesley Minor, and Whitney Lee. Every single one of these individuals made their presence known throughout the State House and displayed an energy for advocacy. Whether it was a short introduction in the hallway or a private meeting in a legislator’s office, the conviction and effectiveness with which they spoke made a lasting impression on every individual they met.

And their work paid off.

In fact, just a couple months later, when COVID had shut down most government bodies and future budgets were being slashed, state legislators decided not only fully fund the BMSA, but to increase its appropriation by over half-a-million dollars.

In a follow-up email to one of the participants from that day, said this:

You lay out your proof in detail not only as to why BMSA has been a good investment, but why it deserves increased funding based on sound business principles using ROI comparisons. I have been a supporter in the House since the issue was presented, passed, then enacted as statutory law.  I will be a willing ally in keeping these programs funded and growing. . . Thanks for “making my day” with your excellent communication!


We are extremely appreciative these individuals took time out of their day to travel to Montgomery and advocate on issues important to them and their peers. We also appreciate Jeff Arrington, Executive Director of AAFP, for his tireless efforts in helping to coordinate this event. The increased funding for BMSA is, no doubt, a direct result of their hard work.

Wesley Minor meets with his Senator, Majority Leader Greg Reed (R-Jasper)

Whitney Lee and Dr. David Bramm meet with Rep. Mike Holmes (R-Wetumpka)

Wesley Minor and Dr. Bill Coleman meet with Rep. Tim Wadsworth (R-Winston)

From left to right: Dr. Holly McCaleb, Dr. Drake Lavender, Dr. David Bramm, Senator Larry Stutts, M.D. ( R-Tuscumbia), Wesley Minor, Whitney Lee, Dr. Bill Coleman, and Jeff Arrington, who discussed the importance of increasing access to care in rural areas through programs like the Board of Medical Scholarship Awards and the Rural Medical Scholars Program.

Posted in: Advocacy, Members, Scholarship

Leave a Comment (0) →

Five Things to Consider When Selling Your Practice to a Private Equity Firm

Five Things to Consider When Selling Your Practice to a Private Equity Firm

By Howard Bogard, Burr Forman

A growing number of physicians are selling their medical practices to private equity firms in order to “monetize” their practice, as well as to access capital and obtain operational efficiencies. In the Southeast, we are seeing consistent private equity activity in the specialties of anesthesiology, gastroenterology, dermatology, ophthalmology, oncology, ENT, and internal medicine, as well as others. 

 Private equity firms generally use capital from wealthy individuals, pension funds and university endowments to invest in various industries with the goal of obtaining a return on investment of 20% or more.  To start, the private equity firm will purchase a large, well-managed (“platform”) medical practice and thereafter will acquire additional practices in order to increase the number of employed physicians throughout a defined geographic area.  The goal is to grow revenue and decrease cost and then sell the practices within three to seven years of acquisition.

 If you are considering a sale to a private equity firm, there are several things to consider:

  1. Valuation of the Practice.  A private equity firm generally determines the purchase price for a medical practice based on a multiple of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization) as a measure of the operating performance of the practice. The multiple can run anywhere from 4 to 12 times EBITDA, with a platform or larger practice obtaining a multiple on the higher end of the range.
  2. Payment of the Purchase Price.  The purchase price is typically a combination of cash plus “roll-over” equity in the buyer from 10% to 30% of the total purchase price.  For example, if the total purchase price is $10 million, $8 million could be paid in cash at closing and $2 million paid as equity in the buyer.  When the buyer sells, the physicians receive a return on their roll-over equity.  A portion of the purchase price may also be paid by a promissory note with payment contingent on the physicians meeting certain revenue benchmarks.  
  3.  Expect a Change in Compensation. After closing, the physicians will become employees of the private equity buyer. In return for a large up-front purchase price, typically a physician will be paid less in annual compensation as compared to pre-closing compensation amounts, although “guaranteed” salaries for a period of time can be negotiated.  Compensation is based on a variety of factors, including collections from personally performed services, plus a percentage of ancillary revenue and/or a percentage of overall profits. Physicians considering a private equity sale should analyze and compare their expected compensation over a three to five year period in private practice versus the same period under a private equity model, to include the up-front payment.
  4. Penalties for Early Departure.  Typically, a private equity firm will require the selling physicians to sign a five-year employment agreement. In the event a physician leaves employment for certain reasons within a defined time period, the departing physician will be required to repay some of the purchase price he or she received (a “claw-back”).  Typically, the claw-back period runs from three to five years after the start of employment, with more money repaid in the first year of the claw-back as compared to the last year. In addition, the selling physicians are required to sign non-compete and non-solicitation/no-hire agreements that restrict the physician’s ability to compete with the private equity buyer in the event the physician leaves the practice.
  5. Loss of Control.  One of the benefits of being in private practice is that the physician owners make the decisions.  If a practice sells to a private equity firm, a management company (owned by the private equity firm) will manage the practice and will have authority to make essentially all operating decisions, other than clinical/medical decisions, which remain within the control of the physicians.  Oftentimes, there is a clinical management board or committee comprised of physicians and private equity representatives that has authority to address certain issues.  However, if the practice is well run and profitable (hence the reason the private equity firm is interested in the practice), in my experience, the private equity firm does not make significant changes without first consulting with the physicians.

Howard Bogard is a Partner at Burr & Forman LLP and chairs the firm’s Health Care Practice Group.  Howard can be reached at 205-458-5416 or at

Posted in: Legal Watch, Management, Members

Leave a Comment (0) →

Physicians Perspective: Dr. Chris Adams Talks Telemedicine

Physicians Perspective: Dr. Chris Adams Talks Telemedicine

Adversity and necessity mandate invention. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine has been transformed almost overnight into a necessary medical tool for remaining connected to our patients.  Without warning, physicians suddenly found themselves in the position of adding communication technologies, learning regulatory requirements, and adapting to an entirely new way of interacting with patients, sometimes reinventing their standard clinic procedures.  Similarly, government and private health care had to modify longstanding obstacles and prohibitions by allowing interstate practice and revising reimbursement policies.

I doubt there is a physician in our state who believes they could have managed their patients through this pandemic without the benefit of telemedicine.  Having said that, telemedicine is not a panacea. 

Practicing in a rural environment, we have discovered that bandwidth challenges are a huge issue.  Older patients also have vision and hearing challenges that make telemedicine less effective than face-to-face visits.  There is still an enormous amount of paperwork involved in conducting a telemedicine visit, it is not simply a matter of “picking up the phone and chatting.”  That is one reason why it is so important to have parity for video and telephone encounters. 

Despite these challenges, most clinicians would like to maintain the availability of this tool as we continue our social and medical confrontation with coronavirus.  At the same time, we also recognize inherent limitations that telemedicine imposes (I just cannot do a good knee exam over the telephone).  The challenge we now face is to define and refine best practices for employing telemedicine.  Part of this effort will require continued advocacy and encouragement of health delivery systems to support telemedicine.  Some of this will also necessitate new legal safe guards for practitioners employing this tool.

As you reflect on how this pandemic has changed your practice, please consider how you can support and contribute to the future of medicine in our state by advocating for your patients and your practice.  It is up to us as clinicians to help mold the future of healthcare delivery.

Posted in: Advocacy, Coronavirus, Members, Technology

Leave a Comment (0) →

Op-Ed: Alabama Medical Practices Hit Hard by COVID-19, Survey Finds

Op-Ed: Alabama Medical Practices Hit Hard by COVID-19, Survey Finds

By:          John S. Meigs, Jr., MD, President Medical Association of the State of Alabama

In a span of just a few months, the coronavirus pandemic has changed the way we function as a society and has fundamentally altered our healthcare delivery system. It has exacerbated weaknesses in the infrastructure of health care and exposed limitations in current policies at a time when costs are rising and access to care is dwindling.

In an effort to understand these changes and their effects, the Medical Association of the State of Alabama released a survey summary detailing the impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) on medical practices and care delivery.  The survey identified several key findings:

  • Public Health Concerns: Survey data shows that patient volume is down considerably and there are concerns that Alabamians are not going to their physician for routine care, including childhood and adult vaccinations, which will have long term public health consequences.
  • Financial Impact: More than 70% of respondents said COVID-19 has had a severe impact on practice finances, causing layoffs and furloughs and limiting access to care
  • Patient Volume: Nearly 60% said patient volume reductions cut revenues by at least 50%, underscoring the extent to which patients are delaying or skipping necessary care
  • Telemedicine Increase: More than 71% said they’re likely to continue providing telemedicine so long as insurers continue covering the services for patients
  • Liability Concerns: More than 71% are concerned about the potential liability from lack of PPE and patients canceling or delaying procedures and other medical care

In addition, a similar study[1] found that Alabama is ranked sixth in the country in the number of patients that are delaying care. While COVID-19 may change how you receive care, it’s still important to look after yourself by getting the time-sensitive medical care you need to stay healthy.

In light of the findings of the survey, the Medical Association recommends several public policy proposals to combat COVID-19’s effects on physician practices and care delivery:

  1. Allocate state stimulus funds to reimburse practices for COVID-19 related expenses
  2. Expansion of testing, PPE, and cleaning supply availability
  3. Continued coverage of telemedicine by insurers at existing rates
  4. Enactment of “safe harbor” legislation to provide liability protections to health care providers

This pandemic has made telehealth more important than ever, enabling access to care to patients whose needs can be met remotely. Telemedicine has saved lives, helped reduce the spread of the virus, and enabled physicians to care for patients in a time when they might have otherwise been unable to. However, it is not a “silver bullet” and should not be viewed as a total replacement for in-person care.

Whether in a hospital, surgery center, or in a clinic, COVID-19 has drastically changed the care we as physicians provide for our patients. We cannot allow this virus to decimate our already strained healthcare system. Supporting those who care for us is needed now more than ever.

View the complete survey summary by clicking the button above or by using this link:

John S. Meigs, Jr., MD, President Medical Association of the State of Alabama

[1] Bean, M., 2020. States Ranked By Percentage Of Americans Delaying Care: Nationwide, 40 Percent Of Americans Are Still Delaying Care, According To A Survey From The U.S. Census Bureau.. [online] Available at: <> [Accessed 26 August 2020].

Posted in: Coronavirus, Members

Leave a Comment (0) →

Underwood Minority Scholarship Awarded

Underwood Minority Scholarship Awarded

The Underwood Minority Scholarship Award is named for long-time Montgomery physician and the Medical Association’s 152nd President Jefferson Underwood III, M.D. Dr. Underwood became the first African-American male to serve as President of the Association in 2018-2019. The Underwood Minority Scholarship Award is for African-American individuals underrepresented in Alabama’s medical schools and the state’s physician workforce.

It is with great pride that we award the following candidate the 2020 Underwood Minority Scholarship Award, and we wish her all the best and hope this monetary award helps her accomplish her goals:

Alicia Williams, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine

A Fort Payne native, Alicia is headed for a career in general pediatrics where she will combine her leadership, clinical skills, knowledge of sports medicine and passion for providing care in rural underserved areas of Alabama. She has had the opportunity to work with teenage youth in Birmingham through Girlz Talk, an organization that teaches professionalism, safety and reproductive education. Alicia has also presented research to Governor Kay Ivey’s team and has collaborated with Secretary Jenna Ross and the Department of Early Childhood Education.

David Bramm, MD, Director of the Rural Medicine Program at UAB states, “Alicia is a breath of fresh air. She is strong without being overbearing, confident without being cocky, devoted to her patients and utterly reliable. I have been privileged to have been a preceptor for several medical schools since 1982 and fully believe Alicia is one of the best I have ever taught. I can recommend her without reservation for the Underwood scholarship.”

Alicia graduated from Mercer University with a 4.0 GPA and a Bachelor’s degree in biology. Currently, she attends UAB School of Medicine and is expected to graduate in 2021. Alicia’s personal interests including writing music, singing and playing basketball.

“I am very grateful to be the first recipient of a scholarship that honors such a respected and esteemed physician as Dr. Underwood,” Alicia states. “This scholarship serves great purpose towards my goals as a future physician, and Dr. Underwood’s leadership and service is a great example for me and other aspiring physicians like me.”

Posted in: Members, Scholarship

Leave a Comment (0) →

The Effect Differing Medical Opinions Have On Falsity and Scienter in False Claims Act Lawsuits

The Effect Differing Medical Opinions Have On Falsity and Scienter in False Claims Act Lawsuits

By: Jim Hoover with Burr Forman, LLP

There is currently a circuit split among the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding the effect differing medical opinions have on the elements of falsity and scienter in False Claims Act lawsuits.  

Earlier this year the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that conflicting medical opinions can create a genuine dispute of material fact on “falsity” in a False Claims Act action. The case is United States v. Care Alternatives. This holding directly conflicts with the Eleventh Circuit’s September 2019 decision in United States v. AseraCare, which held that a mere difference in medical opinion between physicians regarding a patient’s prognosis was not enough to establish falsity under the FCA. In Care Alternatives, the Third Circuit rejected AseraCare and found that conflicting physician testimony about the validity of physician’s certifications was sufficient to raise a dispute of material fact regarding the element of “falsity.” The Third Circuit sought to make clear that in its Circuit, findings of falsity and scienter must be independent from one another for purposes of FCA liability. According to the Third Circuit, the scienter element helps limit the possibility that providers will be exposed to liability under the FCA any time the Government or relator can find an expert who disagreed with the certifying physician’s medical prognosis.

Former employees of Care Alternatives filed a qui tam action against the hospice provider, alleging the hospice had improperly admitted patients who were not eligible for Medicare’s hospice benefit and directed employees to falsify Medicare certifications in order to meet the eligibility requirements. The relators’ physician opined that in 35% of the sample cases he reviewed a reasonable physician would not have certified the patient as terminally ill with a prognosis of six months or less based on the accompanying documentation. Reviewing the same sample set, Care Alternatives’ physician disagreed, finding that a reasonable physician could reasonably certify each case. Thus, there was a disagreement among the parties’ experts. The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey agreed with AseraCare by adopting and applying AseraCare’s holding that an “objective falsehood,” something more than a retrospective difference of opinion, was required to create a genuine dispute of fact.

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed and remand the case for consideration of the other elements of FCA liability, particularly the element of scienter. The Third Circuit noted it is well-established that subjective opinions can be false, and applied this reasoning to the FCA’s falsity element. The Third Circuit opined that AseraCare’s “objective falsity” standard improperly conflated falsity with scienter, i.e., that the whistleblower prove a certifying physician was making a knowingly false certification. The Third Circuit held that these elements must be considered separately, and the purpose of the scienter requirement is to limit the possibility that a provider could be found to violate the FCA any time the Government or a relator could find an expert who may establish falsity simply by disagreeing with a physician’s prognosis.

Thus, in the Third Circuit a determination that a claim was false does not immediately trigger FCA liability. Relators must still establish that the provider knew the claim was false when the claims was submitted. Unfortunately, however, one of the big problems for False Claims Act defendants is credibility determinations are typically reserved for the jury thus almost forcing the False Claims Act case to trial.  

Because of the circuit court split, a United States Supreme Court opinion is needed to resolve the differing circuits’ approaches. In the meantime, the key takeaway for health care providers across the country is these differing standards will be fought in FCA cases where defendants have made reasonable subjective judgments.  The arguments should focus on both the falsity element and the scienter element.  

Jim Hoover is a partner at Burr & Forman LLP and works exclusively within the firm’s Health Care Practice Group and predominantly handles healthcare litigation.

Posted in: Legal Watch, Members, MVP

Leave a Comment (0) →

Advocacy Efforts During COVID-19

Advocacy Efforts During COVID-19

The spread of COVID-19 has affected nearly all aspects of our daily lives. For the Medical Association’s efforts in protecting physicians and patients, this was also true. Nonetheless, between March 13 (when Gov. Ivey issued the COVID-19 state of emergency) and mid-May, our advocacy work continued in full-force.

Executive Actions & Proposals

  • Worked with various stakeholders and Governor Ivey to secure liability protections via an Executive Order for physicians, their staff and their practices against frivolous COVID-19 lawsuits (summary available here);
  • Successfully advocated against multiple dangerous scope of practice expansions proposed by both state and national organizations. Among other things, these proposals would have (1) eliminated physician supervision and destroyed the team-based care model; (2) granted CRNAs the ability to prescribe controlled substances; and (3) allowed pharmacists to switch a patient’s drugs without prescriber authorization and without any requirement to notify to the prescriber or the patient; and
  • Successfully advocated against a proposal to give out-of-state telehealth corporations special treatment that physicians currently living, working, and paying taxes in Alabama do not enjoy.

Telehealth Payment Parity

  • As one of our longstanding priorities (payment parity between in-person visits and telehealth services), we were proud to see reimbursement rates addressed and the policy of parity come to fruition.

Miss our 2020 Legislative Recap, What if No One was on Call? Click here for the annual rundown.

Posted in: Advocacy, Coronavirus, Liability, Members

Leave a Comment (0) →

Honoring Dr. Jefferson Underwood

Honoring Dr. Jefferson Underwood

Long-time Montgomery physician and Medical Association member Jefferson Underwood III, M.D., was recently honored with two distinct awards.

The Alabama Chapter American College of Physicians recognized Jefferson Underwood III, MD, FACP, as the 2020 Laureate Award recipient and the Medical Association of the State of Alabama presented Dr. Underwood with the 2020 Samuel Buford Word Award. These presentations are typically made in person at the annual meetings, but due to the cancellation of this year’s events because of COVID-19, Dr. Underwood was honored in his home with a small group of family and colleagues present.

In 2018, Dr. Underwood became the first African-American male to serve as President of the Medical Association. He previously served the Association as President-Elect, Vice President and Secretary-Treasurer.

He is a Summa Cum Laude graduate of Alabama State University in Montgomery and Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tenn. He completed his internship and residency at D.C. General Hospital/Georgetown University in Washington, D.C.

He previously received the Douglas L. Cannon Award from the Medical Association for Outstanding Medical Journalism for Community Service, the Alabama Young Democrats Achievement Award for Community Service in Health, 2005 Physician of the Year and 2015 Montgomery’s Top Doctor by the International Association of Internal Medicine.

“It was an honor for me to present the 2020 Samuel Buford Word Award, the Medical Association’s highest honor, to Jefferson Underwood.  The Word Award is presented to a physician for outstanding service to humanity that goes above and beyond the usual call of duty.  That certainly describes Jefferson Underwood,“ said John S. Meigs, Jr., MD, current President of the Medical Association. “Whether in his service to the Association, his service to the community or his service to his profession, Jefferson has always exemplified grace, dignity and compassion with a quiet strength and conviction that characterized his own sense of fairness and respect for others that resulted in true service to humanity.”

Giving back to his community is one of Dr. Underwood’s passions. As an adjunct professor at Alabama State University, he taught biology. He also served on the board of directors for the Montgomery Area United Way, the Alliance for Responsible Individual Choices for AIDS/HIV, Montgomery County Health Department Hunt Diabetic Clinic, Central Alabama Home Health, Oxford Home Health, Father Walter’s Center for Gifted Children, Habitat for Humanity, and was the health editor for The Montgomery Advertiser.

During the presentation of the awards, Dr. Underwood was also presented with a clock from the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners as a memento of his service to the Board.  “Why do we present you with a clock?  Because, the clock represents time, and, time represents eternity.  As a member of our Board staff has said, ‘Once a member of the Board, always a member of the Board,’” Dr. Mark LeQuire, MD FACR, explains. “In preparation for this presentation, I walked about the halls of the Board building, admiring the composites of previous Board members, and was invigorated to remember the giants in medicine in the State of Alabama whom have served.  Jefferson you are one of those giants, and now, you will always be one of those giants.  The fraternity of your fellow Board members thanks you for your service, for the exemplary manner in which you modeled the perfect physician priest, for your calming demeanor and influence in times of both need and stress, and for just simply being our brother and our friend.  Remember, we will always cherish you, you will never be forgotten, and we are always at your service.  May our God bless you and yours every so richly and deeply.”

Posted in: Leadership, Members

Leave a Comment (0) →
Page 1 of 8 12345...»